Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-28-1991
Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas - 500 U.S. 322 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1990) Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas No. 89-1679 Argued Nov. 26, 1990 Decided May 28, 1991 500 U.S. 322 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Pinhas, an ophthalmologist on the staff of petitioner Midway Hospital Medical Center, filed a suit in the District Court, asserting a violation, inter alia, of 1 of the Sherman Act by Midway and other petitioners, including several doctors. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that petitioners conspired to exclude Pinhas from the Los Angeles ophthalmological services market when he refused to follow an unnecessarily costly surgical procedure used at Midway; that petitioners initiated peer review proceedings against him which did not conform to congressional requirements and which resulted in the termination of his Midway staff privileges; that, at the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-28-1991
Reported in : I(1992)DMC374
B.L. Yadav, J.1. The defendant-appellant, has filed the present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and order dated 18.5 90 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. CaseNo. 25/89 rejecting her restoration application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short the Act) under Article 123 of the Act the period of limitation to set aside an ex-parte decree was 30 days from the date of decree, or where summons or notice was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The application for restoration was filed by the appellant (the wife) against the ex-parte decree dated 30.5.89 passed by the Family Court in Matrimonial case No. 65 of 1988 (Mahesh Sharma v. Smt. Deep Mala Sharma) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting ex-parte decree for divorce in favour of the respondent (the husband) This restoration application was filed under order 9 rule 13 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-1991
Reported in : [1991(63)FLR336]; (1992)ILLJ660Bom
1. This appeal by the Insurance Corporation is directed against the judgment dated October 22, 1986, passed by the Insurance Court, directing the Corporation to refund the amount recovered towards the contribution during the period January 1, 1981 till June 30, 1981. 2. The Respondent-Company has been engaged in manufacture of Viscoso Rayon Yarn. Its employees were admitted to the benefits under the Insurance Scheme, since drawing the wages below Rs. 1,000/- as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The Company paid the contribution due for the period from January 1, 1981 to June 30, 1981. 3. The Company on September 2, 1981 with its employees arrived at a settlement in pursuance of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the settlement the pay scales of the employees came to be revised with effect from January 1, 1981. As a result, the monthly wages of the employees exceeded to Rs. 1,000/- from that date. 4. According to the Company, its r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-14-1991
Reported in : 1994LC700(Calcutta),1992(57)ELT249(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners have imported HAKKO BRAND SCALP VEIN SETS (hereinafter referred to as the goods). The goods arrived in Calcutta in August 1990. The petitioners have described the goods as intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use in their Bill of Entry. The petitioners claim that the said goods are wholly exempt from customs duty being covered by Item 19 under the heading 'Life Saving Equipment' contained in the Customs Notification No. 208/81 (hereinafter referred to as the first Notification).2. The respondents have refused to permit the petitioner to clear the said goods and have claimed customs duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem.3. It was agreed that no affidavits need be filed but that the Court could determine the questions involved in this case on the basis of the documents produced.4. The Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 provides for a general exemption of the whole of the customs duty and additional duty leviable under the First Schedule and Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-03-1991
Reported in : [1993]202ITR303(KAR); [1993]202ITR303(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at ten per cent. on the nursing home building on the ground that it is a ' plant ' ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and is a medical practitioner. He is running a nursing home in respect of which he claimed depreciation allowance at ten per cent. for the assessment year 1983-84. The building was constructed during 1979-80. For the earlier year, depreciation was allowed at five per cent. treating it as a second class building. For the year 1983-84, the assessee put forth the claim that either it is a factory building or a plant entitling him to depreciation at ten per cent. 3. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's case that the life of the building was reduced by the heat generated in the canteen and sterilisation room ; according to the Income-tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-12-1991
Reported in : (1991)LC204Tri(Delhi)
1. This application for Rectification of Mistake apparent from record in Order No. 110/91-A, dated 8-2-1991 has been filed under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds that the Tribunal had not traversed the following arguments/pleas :- "(a) Plea against loading of invoice in absence of evidence merely on the basis of surmises. (b) Plea against enhancement of invoice value there being no whisper of allegation of illegal remittance of Foreign Exchange, over and above the L.C. value. (c) Plea against not giving the same standard of credence to the foreign suppliers' two certificates dated 17-3-1975 and 28-8-1981 by the learned Collector (Appeal) thereby prejudicing the appellants' case. (d) Plea that the appellants having no truck with the manufacturers, it was not possible for them to submit the manufacturers invoice. (e) Mistakenly held that "39.5% share holding of the U.K. Company in the equity capital of appellants shows mutual interest in the business of each other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-10-1991
Reported in : [1992]195ITR417(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd., claiming as successors to Marshall Sons and Co. (Mfg.) Ltd., Ambattur, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the assessment to income-tax for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 of Marshall Sons and Co. (Mfg.) Ltd., Ambattur, on the file of the respondent and restrain him from taking steps regarding the assessment of the said company, as the said company was not in existence during the previous years relevant to the assessment years, as it had been amalgamated with Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. with effect from January 1, 1982. 2. Marshall Sons and Co. (Mfg.) Ltd., Ambattur, carried on business in the manufacture and sale of cranes and other road making machinery and it was a subsidiary of Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd., registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with its registered office at No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-05-1991
Reported in : 1991(2)ALT93
ORDERP.L.N. Saram, J.1. C.M.P. No. 2268 of 1991 was one filed Under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent. 2. C.M.P. 2267 of 1991 was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent and C.M.P. No. 12529 of 1990 was filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole respondent in the revision. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it is stated that the advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the revision petition informed their Advocate by his letter dt. 22-3-1990 that the sole respondent in the revision petition died on 16-1-1990. Immediately thereafter, they caused enquiries and came to know that the said statement is correct and also on enquiries they came to know that the sole respondent died issue-less and his brother's sons, viz., the persons sought to be impleaded are the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-27-1991
Reported in : ILR1992KAR444; 1991(3)KarLJ308
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The petitioner in this Election Petition is the son of Sri T.Mariappa a freedom fighter, an ardent and zealous Congressman and also one time Home Minister of the erstwhile Government of Mysore before reorganisation of States between 1947 and 1952. He hailed from Beereswarapura in Nagamangala Taluk and a very popular political leader. Even after reorganisation of States he contested from Nagamangala constituency in the General Elections of 1957, succeeded and was the Finance Minister in the Mysore State Government till 1962. In the later elections he did not contest due to ill-health and passed away in the year 1964. Perhaps the petitioner did not think of entering into politics during the life time of his father. He however joined the Congress Party in the year 1967. He is a graduate in Engineering and took his education at Bangalore throughout. It appears he has been faithful to the Party ever since he joined it. For the first time he sought ticket in the year 1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-25-1991
Reported in : [1991]192ITR633(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai entered into an agreement dated December 28, 1961, with Messrs. Machinefabriek Reineveld, a company incorporated in Holland with limited liability ('foreign company' for short), under which the foreign company agreed to place at the disposal of the limited liability company, which Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai intended to incorporate in India all the present and future know-how, the use of patents and all technical details with complete workshop drawings for manufacture of their engineering products, on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Such technical collaboration was for a period of ten years from the date of incorporation of the said limited liability company or from the date effective steps were taken in execution of the agreement, whichever was later. It was provided in the agreement that, notwithstanding the expiry of the agreement, after the stipulated period of ten years, th...
Tag this Judgment!